Analysis of Bail Bond Bills

Bart Cooper submitted the following analysis of SB1247 and HB2454. He owns Freedom Bonding, LLC, and Bart Cooper Bail Bonds in the Kansas City area. You can visit his website here.

Issues/concerns surrounding establishment of a “Professional Bail Bonds Board”

Overview: The bill strips the DIFP of authority to license, supervise, discipline and educate bail and recovery agents. Instead, such powers shall vest in a Professional Bail Bonds Board consisting of nine members (four general agents, two bail agents, one law enforcement officer, one circuit clerk and one public member). Members of the Board shall be appointed by the Governor.

Functional Concerns:

1) The DIFP structure for licensing, supervision, discipline & education is well-planned and substantial. The legislation sets forth no plans regarding infrastructure necessary to achieve the stated purposes. Apparently, legislative proponents assume that members of the board will possess the requisite expertise to create and maintain such an infrastructure.
2) No analysis exists regarding the financial solvency of the Board and its employees. The Board will be funded by imposing a ten dollar per bond tax on each bond written by a licensed agent. Notwithstanding the procedural difficulties in imposing and collecting such a fee, no evidence exists establishing the sufficiency of said fee. A review of other jurisdictions reveals a substantially higher fee per bond.
3) No ability to issue cease and desist orders exists.
4) No mechanism exists for policing the Board. The proposed legislation does not provide a solution should Board members act inappropriately. While the Governor may remove a Board member for just cause, no standards for just cause exist.
5) Discipline by the Board would likely be arbitrary and capricious. No standards exist for discipline. Since Board members would possess an economic incentive to discipline (eliminate) their competition, the expected result would be just that.
6) No mechanism exists for auditing Board members’ expenses.
7) While all “regular” meetings shall be open to the public, the legislation does not delineate what constitutes a regular meeting or what must be discussed at these meetings.
8) The bill requires attempted notice within 48 hours of a forfeiture being listed with the department. The language is problematic since there is no requirement that the department (assumed to be DIFP) notify the board. Additionally, actual notice is not required, only an attempt to notify must be made.
9) The bill fails to expand the 15-year felony clause to prohibit all felons from entering the bail industry.

Philosophical Concerns:

Individuals with an economic interest in reducing competition will be placed in the position to do just that. Nearly all will agree that the DIFP is a neutral party who gains no economic advantage in enforcing bail laws. Such transparency is vital to the legitimacy of enforcement. Most members of the Board, however, will benefit in seeing their competitors disciplined. Less bond agents means more bonds for the agents remaining in the industry. Thus, a clear economic benefit and an equally clear conflict of interest is present.

If you disagree with transferring the authority of the DIFP to a newly created bail bond board, please join us in making your opinion known. Download this petition, sign it and return it to the address listed.